Judge Rules Trump's Firing of Employee Appeals Board Chairman Illegal.

In a significant legal ruling, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras has determined that President Donald Trump’s removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Chairman Cathy Harris was unlawful. The decision reinforces long-standing legal protections for independent agency officials and sets the stage for a potential Supreme Court battle.

Why the Court Ruled Against Trump

Judge Contreras found that Trump’s decision to fire Harris violated Supreme Court precedent, specifically Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which limits the president’s authority to remove independent agency officials without just cause.

“The president thus lacks the power to remove Harris from office at will,” said Contreras, an Obama-appointed judge. “Because the president did not indicate that he sought to remove Harris for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, his attempt to terminate her was unlawful and exceeded the scope of his authority.”

Harris was dismissed on February 10 via a brief two-sentence email with no explanation. She sued the following day, and on February 18, Judge Contreras issued a temporary restraining order preventing her removal. In his final 35-page ruling, he confirmed that Harris must be reinstated.

The Importance of the Merit Systems Protection Board

The MSPB was established to uphold federal civil service protections and prevent political coercion, discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation. Contreras emphasized the need for the board’s independence, warning that direct political control over the MSPB would undermine the Civil Service Reform Act.

“Direct political control over the MSPB would have limited effect on the president’s implementation of his policy agenda,” Contreras wrote. “It would instead neuter the Civil Service Reform Act’s statutory scheme by allowing high-ranking government officials to engage in prohibited practices then pressure the MSPB into inaction.”

The government argued that the board wielded “significant executive power,” making its members subject to at-will presidential removal. However, Contreras firmly rejected that claim.

What Happens Next?

Harris was two years into her seven-year term, which was set to expire in 2028. She was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate. In March 2024, she was named chairman of the board.

Following the attempted termination, the Trump administration announced that Henry Kerner, a Republican Biden appointee, would serve as acting chair. After fellow Democrat and Biden appointee Raymond Limon retired, Kerner is now the only remaining board member.

The case is part of a larger legal battle over Trump’s removals of independent agency officials. Other terminations being challenged include:

• Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel
• Officials from the Federal Labor Relations Authority
• Members of the National Labor Relations Board
• Officials from the U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently ruled that Dellinger’s firing was also illegal, preventing his removal without just cause. The Trump administration has already appealed her ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel is expected to uphold her decision.

Will This Go to the Supreme Court?

Legal experts anticipate that these cases will reach the Supreme Court, where justices could either reaffirm Humphrey’s Executor or reconsider the limits on presidential removal power.

Trump has also terminated 17 inspectors general from various federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, State, Education, Labor, and Agriculture. Eight of them have filed a lawsuit, which will be heard by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on March 11.

The outcome of these cases could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the presidency and independent government agencies.

Final Thoughts

Judge Contreras’ ruling is a major blow to Trump’s efforts to exert control over independent agencies. If upheld, it will preserve protections for civil service officials and limit future presidents’ ability to remove them without cause. However, with multiple appeals in progress, the final decision may ultimately rest with the Supreme Court.

Stay tuned for updates as this legal battle unfolds.